|
Fox on the Debates

Site Search Navigation

Site Navigation

Site Mobile Navigation

Supported by

Fox on the Debates

March 9, 2007 9:32 amMarch 9, 2007 9:32 am

Roger Ailes at a Television Critics Association discussion in July. (Photo: Fred Prouser/Reuters)

Roger Ailes, chairman of Fox News, had something to say about some bloggers’ efforts to pressure Democrats to drop Fox as a sponsor of some of the presidential debates, like the one it has scheduled for August in Nevada.

Upon receiving the First Amendment Leadership Award on Thursday night from the Radio and Television News Directors, Mr. Ailes addressed the issue bluntly in his speech:

We’re headed into covering a tough political season, and all of us will be called upon to do our best and be fair. Recently pressure groups are forcing candidates to conclude that the best strategy for journalists is divide and conquer, to only appear on those networks and venues that give them favorable coverage.

There’s a long tradition of news organizations, national and local, sometimes together, sponsoring presidential and other candidate debates. The organizations and the panelists have been the objects of a lot of advice and even pressure as to how these debates should be conducted and what questions should be asked. This pressure has been successfully resisted, but it’s being tried again this year with the added wrinkle that candidates are being asked to boycott debates because certain groups wants to approve the sponsoring organizations. This pressure must be resisted as it has been in the past. Any candidate for high office of either party who believes he can blacklist any news organization is making a terrible mistake about journalists. And any candidate of either party who cannot answer direct, simple, even tough questions from any journalist runs a real risk of losing the voters.
The public knows if a journalist’s question is unfair. They also know if a candidate is impeding freedom of speech and free press. If you are afraid of journalists, how will you face the real dangers in the world?

The first amendment allows us the right to assemble. So we’re constitutionally legal, although the constitution actually says peaceably assemble and the night’s not over, so we’ll see how it goes.

But it also allows us freedom of the press, which gives everyone in this room a lot of power and a lot of responsibility. It is important to remember that while the constitution guarantees freedom of the press, freedom depends on fairness in the press.

Only people who understand different points of view can exercise an informed decision in the voting booth. Freedom of the press did not invent democracy. Democracy invented freedom of the press. For saying that, I sometimes get accused of being too pro-American or too pro-Israeli. I just happen to like democracies. But it don’t mean we can’t cover the news fairly. Bias is not necessarily what you believe in, but it can be reporting a story and leaving out other people’s valid beliefs. The first amendment also guarantees freedom of speech, which is linked to another favorite word in today’s world, ‘diversity.’ But diversity is not just skin color, economic status, geography and religion. It is also diversity of thought.

The greatest danger to journalism is a newsroom or a profession where everyone thinks alike. Because then one wrong turn can cause an entire news division to implode. We must respect and encourage diversity of thought and speech in the newsroom.

Of course journalists have opinions. If you don’t have an informed opinion, you might not be too smart. And if you can’t cover something you don’t agree with fairly, you might be a weak journalist.

I respect Fox News for excercising their First Amendment right. I just don’t think the Democrats should associate with Fox News unless they are trying to exploit Fox for being right wing cheerleaders and Karl Rove allies. The Democrats need to really think about this one. How are you going to let someone, who will turn off your microphone when you talk, host your debates? Dumb move.

Fully agree with you, Mr. Ailes. But, why don”t you start applying your holy vows, at home. Nice preaching others, but, more convincing when you can show the results. Your station should, first, start giving the news, as it is, before having your so-called unbiased commentators distorting the story. Give us the facts, first. We will see after who is making sense or not. There is no use to promote democracy abroad, when we do not respect the will of the majority, at home. If there are so many who are thinking to boycott your network, did you ask why….or you are just trying to tell everyone else that they are wrong? By the way, how many of your analysts are paid by the White House? It seems that they are very anxious to justify the Republicans’ position.

This whole speech from Roger Ailes is way too long and too self defensive. He should understand why many viewers and politicians don’t like FOX which is that they are always pro-Bush. They really are the White House loudspeakers. This was obvious when the Republicans this past November lost the elections. Every TV station covered every minute of it except FOX – they were too upset. All of this stuff always works both way. I used to watch FOX quite a bit and then dropped them. Blunt,Biased, and thus Boring.

Diversity of thought is a wonderful concept, but FOX obviously does not exercise this. First of all, FOX makes comments that are factually incorrect. Libby was not acquitted as FOX claimed; Foley was not a Democrat as FOX claimed; Obama’s madrassa story did not come from Hillary’s campaign as FOX claimed (or at least there is no evidence of it so they should not be saying that). And of course, when FOX covers the global warming issue, the segment is titled “Warming Hysteria.” Just yesterday, Hannity was commenting on how terrible Hillary was and how she’s not going to win. When the Attorney General of California said that people should not underestimate Hillary, Hannity kept on interjecting to drown out Brown. There is no diversity of thought.

Message to Democrats: What are we afraid of? Appearing on Fox would be a great opportunity for reaching folks in another choir besides the one to which we are always preaching. Selective exclusion of one medium over another is the same crime of which we accuse them. Get over it.

Chuck is right. The candidates make the debate, not the news station that is broadcasting it. Come on, people, do you really think that a national broadcast will be subject to tampering by the news channel covering it? What do you think will happen? The nominees’ comments will be dubbed over? Their microphones will be turned off? Obviously Fox News is trying to reach the left-leaners of America, so they have no business incentive to try to alienate us by tampering with a debate.

Here is an excellent reason why FOX should be boycotted: currently fraud and disinformation is being perpetrated in Nevada. On the Nevada State Democratic Party website, party chairman Tom Collins refers to the collective agreement of all Western states to allow your organization to host the debate. He referred to //www.westerndemocrat.com. On that site, Emmett O’Connell claims that a person named “Dullard Marsh” is “doing a good job of explaining” the debate controversy. PROBLEM: Dullard Marsh is really a biased and blatant smear-blog called “Dullard Mush” //www.dullardmush.com – to the unsuspecting, one would think that a Mr. Marsh makes a reasonable point. In fact, upon visiting the Dullard MUSH site, it is obviously distorting information and smearing candidates. This is why citizens in favor of government for the people and by the people are sick of entities such as FOX who manipulate people and distort the truth. No one is afraid of Journalists, and reasonable people are able to tell whether a journalist is fair. But even incredibly smart people can be conned by distortion and brain washing which is blatantly practiced by the FOX organization; That even smart people can be conned is clearly demonstrated by former FBI agent Robert Hannsen currently in prison for betraying our country by selling secrets to the Russians. He conned the FBI for years. Any doubters out there are free to watch the excellent documentary “Outfoxed” which exposes the mass manipulations for what they are: fraud. Or sit back and watch what is happening already in Nevada.

Jesus Roger, could I have some cheese with that whine? The reason that none of the other kids likes you is because you don’t play well with others. And all of the references to your civil liberties notwithstanding are superflous in the face of the simple fact that your organization comes off as having a CLEAR agenda.

We all expect everyone to have an opinion but to hear you tell it FOX news s just another media source like all the rest. Well here’s a newsflash for you puppethead, most of the other mainstream media sources at least appear, on their surface, not to harbor a visceral contempt of the democratic process.

You don’t like the way things are going? Speak out. You have a grudge? Go ahead and get it out of your system. But please, Roger, don’t kid yourself into thinkig that the American public is unaware of your bent.

Lets look at the record…Murdock is the most sucessful soft porn purveyer in history…tabloids in Australia, UK, USA..He knows the readership and his viewers…Under 80 IQ blue collar types who need an outlet for their inferior feelings.
Ailes is a propagandist who is Murdocks chief peddler at Fox News.
I think these loud entertainers should not participate in a serious debate…
Let them stick with grissly murders,topless blond hookers,shouting matches and other freak shows. In this Ailes is expert…

Mr.Ailes: Hello? Have you listened to your own news outlet? On every issue, they give a Bush Administsration/conservative point of view and of course Britt Hume always has a sneer on his face when discussing the Democrats. Why else would Dick Cheney insist on every TV set in his hotel rooms be set set to Fox News. Pleae Mr. Ailes, don’t assume that the entire country is as dull witted as you faithful devotees.

Perhaps the biggest swindle perpetrated upon the American public is the myth of the “liberal media”.

The idea that there is even a debate as to whether Fox News is a propoganda mouthpiece for the far right (they certainly are!) ignores the fact that the other corporate news sources lean right also.

One only needs to spend a few days reading the news from sources outside the U.S. corporate mainstream media to see this quite clearly. And I’m not referring to some dude reporting on his personal web page from his una-bomber style shack in the mountains. I’m talking about sources like the BBC, Finacial Times, International Herald Tribune and numerous others, as well as the numerous examples as reported by such “subversive” organizations as Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting and the good folks at Z-Net.

Those who rely on the mainstream corporate media, very much including the NY Times, are getting a partial story at best; one that clearly slants to the right.

Fox is dangerous in it’s blatant propoganda, but the misconception that it’s the only right-leaning mainstream source is equally dangerous.

To drop Fox as a sponsor of the Presidential debates fuels the fire Fox started. Dems should be able to deliver on any platform their best convincing message. The audience that Fox News has is ususually more conservative. Isn’t that especially who the Dem’s want to hear their message?

I say that Democrats should support FOX news coverage of the debates. There is nothing better than getting some friends together, opening a nice bottle of wine and watching the comedy that is FOX “news”. If we can’t have a sense of humor about what we all agree is poor journalism (term used loosely) we just won’t survive the tough election season ahead.

I’m thinking it’s a bad idea to treat Fox as a real news outlet. Britt Hume is a Repub mouthpiece disguised as a reporter, dishing out spin dressed up as news. The fact that Tony Snow could become Bush spokesman so effortlessly was telling. The Dems don’t seem capable of